Sounds awesome.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
F1 will see a complete change in engine regulations in 2014, and we're having a closer look at what that means exactly
Sounds awesome.
The description I gave doesn't fit into the VGT category as laid out in the technical regulations.n smikle wrote:No VGT's allowed. (Yet!)
To allow sliding, as you describe, would require that the volutes would have to have clearence equal to the axial displacement of the compressor and turbine, which would mean lower performance at all times.Blaze1 wrote:The description I gave doesn't fit into the VGT category as laid out in the technical regulations.n smikle wrote:No VGT's allowed. (Yet!)
All they have to do is direct the FIA to youtube:mclaren_mircea wrote:http://grandprix247.com/2014/01/25/disp ... d-ferrari/
Reports have emerged that even before the new V6 turbo engines are fired up in anger, a dispute is brewing between Mercedes, Renault and Ferrari.
Auto Motor und Sport reports that the dispute is over whether a protective cover for the turbocharger, weighing a crucial 3 or 4 kilograms, is necessary.
Mercedes and Renault argue that the cover is needed for safety reasons in the event of a turbo failure, but Ferrari wants to leave the cover off.
“Next week there will be a clarifying conversation with the FIA,” wrote correspondent Tobias Gruner. ”Renault will apparently show a film of what happens when a turbocharger explodes.”
You can read in this that Ferrari has a lighter engine (and probably a little less power) than Mercedes and Renault, but they exploited to the last level of possibility the and in a much clever way the distribution of the weight of F14T. It's also very likely that the overal package (chassis+engine) is much more on limit with the regulations with the whole weight of the car than Mercedes and Renault power cars, and that their's design can't sustain another add of weight without damaging some joker they think they have in their hands, regarding their package. I may be wrong, but that's my interpretation of this problem. I'm eagerly waiting for other opinions.
A small part could hit driver of the following car as it did with Massarscsr wrote:I don't really get, why there would be any protective cover.
This is basically the same technology that is used millions of times on the roads. And even if a turbocharger blows up, what should happen? Or what is the difference to a broken connecting rod?
If there are parts of the turbine, that are thrown out of the back, they would be small enough to get blown upwards by the aerodynamic upwash.
It's not an explosion. And again, what's the difference to any other part of the engine?WilliamsF1 wrote:A small part could hit driver of the following car as it did with Massarscsr wrote:I don't really get, why there would be any protective cover.
This is basically the same technology that is used millions of times on the roads. And even if a turbocharger blows up, what should happen? Or what is the difference to a broken connecting rod?
If there are parts of the turbine, that are thrown out of the back, they would be small enough to get blown upwards by the aerodynamic upwash.
The small explosion could cause a rear suspension failure which could end up causing a serious crash to the car or the following car
I would say the difference between a turbo and an engine is the difference in the mass/strength of the material surrounding the moving bits.rscsr wrote:It's not an explosion. And again, what's the difference to any other part of the engine?
Well the small part you are speaking of was the third spring and a mass of about 1kg. So neither small nor light.
And additionally no cover would be able to prevent a failing turbo from hitting anything else, because it will spit its shredded parts straigt through the exhaust.
